OleMissCub

I guess all those actors that played Jesse James and the writers that wrote about him were lovers of slavery as well. So you actually LIKE a person who murdered innocents yet you are giving me grief about Jesse James? I don't even like Jesse James or his stories and exploits because they are all bullcrap. He wasn't a "hero" of the people. He was a murderer. He was an invention of reconstruction era presspeople. I asked because I didn't think you knew. I figured you thought it was just some random confederate soldier, because I guessed if you had known it was Jesse James, you wouldn't have said such a thing and would have gotten that it was a joke.

Bet you didn't have to search hard to find that one Wasnt hard at all. He is obviously the most famous bushwacker, just did a GIS for jesse james and it was on the first page i believe. And yes, i know you were being sarcastic.

Jesse James, noted slave owner and pro-slavery sympathizer. Also, like most Missourians, a man who enjoyed a bit of incest, IIRC. Haha."IIRC" = wikipedia. You do realize that posting a picture of jesse james and saying "eat lead jayhawkers" is part of a joke in a gag thread which YOU started. Where is your derision for those that posted the gag shirts showing the sacking of lawrence where 200+ people were murdered or where are your sardonic comments directed at the poster of the John Brown shirt, a man who literally chopped innocent people up with swords in front of their families? This is supposed to be a funny thread, but instead you turn into an accusation that i support slavery.

Does anyone at least recognize the image I posted?

So nice of you to say that. The ad hominem attacks continue on this board without challenge. maybe it's because the majority of people don't like you. By all means, please keep it up, i'm begging you.

So nice of you to say that. The ad hominem attacks continue on this board without challenge.

Telling of what? That I'm a violent racist scumbag too? Telling that you actually do respect him as a person. Read into that however you like. I don't have to respect someone to try and mitigate the way their reputation has been exaggerated by time. You think criminal defense attorney's admire the character of their clients? Is someone paying you to defend Ty Cobb's reputation on a message board? That's not the point at all. The point is that you don't have to "respect" or "admire" someone's character when you see something done that you think is wrong. The last refuge of a defeated debater is an Ad hominem attack, to which several people have clearly resorted to in this thread.

Telling of what? That I'm a violent racist scumbag too? Telling that you actually do respect him as a person. Read into that however you like. I don't have to respect someone to try and mitigate the way their reputation has been exaggerated by time. You think criminal defense attorney's admire the character of their clients?

Telling of what? That I'm a violent racist scumbag too?

wins for me. You don't think it makes a difference whether he had a freaking Bowie knife or a simple pocket knife like just about everyone carried around back then? Cobb only pulled the knife after he had his skull split open by several strikes from a billy club and reportedly feared for his life. Both of the men were apparently in the wrong, which is a principal reason why nothing much was made about it at the time, even though it was in Cleveland, a rival city that would have loved to have crucify him. Cobb was being a drunk punkass kid and the watchman acted excessively. As baseball writer Richard Bak said: "Error to Cobb, assist to Sanderson (the watchman)". Again, context apparently is never allowed to try and mitigate something, even an act that is admittedly awful, with you guys. There's never a gray area, everything is in white or black. It reeks of self righteousness and pompousness.

http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/9522/timmyjimmy2qk5.gif

http://library.thinkquest.org/04oct/01737/images/use/outlaws/jessejames_age17.gif "Eat lead Jayhawkers"

:lol:

Second time you've insulted me by questioning my mental facilities in this thread.

I wonder how many of our superstar athletes of today would have just washed out of the game in 1920 because they couldn't have hacked the physical demands. The old guys had to play on fields with rocks sprinkled in with the dirt. You routinely read stories of guys with huge gashes in their legs and blood on their uniforms from sliding and then continuing to play. There is a famous story of Wagner having a 6 inch open wound in his leg after he skidded across a rock on a steal attempt. He apparently got two of his teammates to spit their tobacco juice into the wound and went on playing the game, waiting till after it was over to get stitched up! :shock: The older batters had to face pitchers who were, up until 1920, allowed to cheat and screw with the ball as much as they wanted before pitching it. They didn't have batting gloves or batting helmets, so I imagine the fear of the inside pitch was probably greater than it is now (recall Ray Chapman being killed by a pitched ball in 1920). There was no video footage of pitchers to study before a game. Cobb apparently had a mental cache of all the American league pitchers he had faced and on best to hit against them. Players from opposing teams would often approach him and ask for advice on how to face a pitcher that they were to face in the next series. Casey Stengal once told a story about how Cobb spent an entire hour talking with him and explaining how to hit Grover Alexander. Stengal said he had 3 hits the next time he faced Alexander. So, to me, I just don't think there is any way to truly compare the eras, there are pros and cons to each.

As a human being, yes. However, I don't admire Cobb as a person but as a baseball player, so that question is irrelevant. Do you actually think anyone believes this? Seriously, you have bent over backwards here to defend this guy when his actions were totally despicable. You are being completely dishonest here. What about him is there to admire OTHER (save for the fact that I do think it was admirable of him to give away all his millions to charity)than his playing ability ? I've bent over backward to "defend" him because I don't think his terrible actions off the field should be the first thing that baseball fans think off when they think of Cobb. There are numerous other baseball authors and historians who feel this way as well. I don't see how you aren't able to understand that people can separate someone's athletic and on the field ability, with their off the field behavior. Not ONCE have I ever said Cobb was a good person, a nice guy, or even a half-decent person...but rather that his modern perception is overkill. He does deserve a tainted reputation for his awful actions, but just not to the extreme extent that exists today.

One interesting thing about baseball is that, regardless of the era, batting averages have remained pretty consistent. There have obviously been ups and downs (late 60's for example), but on the whole, the average player is going to hit .260-.270 or so, whereas the "good" players always hit around .300 or a bit higher. I think Cobb would have been a "good" to "great" hitter today, but he wouldn't have been the "excellent" hitter that he was more than likely, and I don't think it has so much to do with the talent level that surrounded him (a student of the game like him would have adjusted to different pitches and better pitchers), I think the difference moreso than anything else is the relief pitcher. We'll likely never see another .400 average or anything surpassing the 56 game hit streak because of that.

Richard Bak's "Peach: Ty Cobb in His Time and Ours" has an entire chapter dealing with Stump's book, Burns' Baseball documentary, and ESPN's Sportscentury series on Cobb. Statistician Bill Burgess also has written some articles about that subject. Indeed it is. Much of the anecdotal contemporary tales that exist about Cobb come from papers in rival cities who obviously had an interest at the time of making Cobb a villain. My earlier point about the NY Times was stated because I think it is interesting how a paper which despised the man so much would actually not seem to care too much about him jumping into the stands and whooping on one of their own spectators.

I think it's impossible to compare those eras. There are hardships and advantages to both eras.

Such true contrition you are showing, it's remarkable. Seriously though, let's get back to how punching an ump is as bad as stabbing and beating the innocent again. I'm intrigued. Not going to give you the pleasure. I paid to get premium so I can block people like you. Tim couldn't get it back up soon enough.

Such true contrition you are showing, it's remarkable.

If by my entire life you mean a month during my senior year of undergrad, then you are right.

This conversation is over.

So, no defense of your position other than a fanboy "I wrote big paper over him"? Hmmmm, a person who spent countless hours reading microfilm from 5 different newspapers about all the major incidents of his career and has read six or seven books about the guy vs. you, someone who is uninformed about the topic and is relying on Wikipedia. Even the freaking NY Times sympathized with Cobb!